Science, Innovation, Politics
Lets be robust and frank about this. The AGW advocates are cr@pp!ing themselves over the scandals that have enveloped climate science and climate change policy.......and to think this was entirely preventable. Who now has the where-with-all and the stomach to clean up this mess?
I beg to differ Roger, but that is one long table populated on one side only.Activists, environmental journalists and industry insiders and funded academics in the social sciences who just want to "get on with the policy" (surprise surprise).The Grauniad is heaping more and more disrepute on itself with this latest transparent partisan approach to climate change.
Morning Roger, welcome to Greenwich Mean Time.Excellent, professional contribution to the debate. Nice use of the word 'denial'.As a non professional, with no academic standing, and no access to the corporate media, I wrote the following in another thread. The 'transfer' referred to being carbon credits/trading.I believe the proposition put forward by the corporate media that trillions of dollars should be transferred from honest human beings to the corporate sector, due to potentially dangerous AGW, is fraudulent. In the sense that the scientific case has not been made.
Guardian coverage of the debate is oil industry sponsored, sub tabloid propaganda.They are running a series whitewashing the CRU crimes at the moment, written by Fred Pearce. http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/fredpearceThey censored my link to Doug Keenan's peer reviewed report of the Chinese UHI scandal, which actually ended up in court, and banned me for reposting it.The Fraud Allegation Against Wei-Chyung WangOne of the main studies cited by the report to justify that conclusion substantially relies on the claims that Wang fabricated—indeed, Wang is a co-author of the study.The study is authored by Jones et al. (1990). It treats not only China (where Wangwas responsible for supplying the data), but also Russia and Australia (where Wanghad no responsibility). The regions of Russia and Australia are not considered here,but there is some evidence that they too are problematic.4http://www.informath.org/pubs/EnE07a.pdf
I got the most from Pielke, Highfield, and Tol. Perhaps the scientific panel (new name and new players needed) should be decoupled from the politics of the UN.